Thursday, April 28, 2011

Unions irate over Mass. House vote to limit health care bargaining

BOSTON — Hundreds of police and firefighters from across the state swarmed around the entrance to the House Chamber at the Statehouse today, cheering lawmakers who opposed a budget amendment that would strip municipal unions of bargaining rights over health care, and complaining to those who backed the measure.

Having lost a battle in the House late last night to stop the so-called “plan design” authorization to allow cities and towns to unilaterally change health insurance coverage, co-payments and deductibles, union leaders said they would now carry the fight to the Senate.

Worcester City Manager Michael V. O'Brien said today if the House legislation — given initial approval as part of the state budget bill on a 111-42 vote — is adopted, the city could avoid as many as 131 layoffs this year with savings of about $5 million.

While backers of the House budget amendment, including House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo, D-Winthrop, said the bargaining changes would allow cities and towns to save up to $100 million statewide, union leaders claimed they were willing to agree to those savings, without sacrificing cherished historic rights to bargain over wages and benefits.

Gov. Deval L. Patrick called on labor leaders to “dial down the rhetoric” and continue working on the legislation as it goes over the Senate.

“This is not Wisconsin. That is not what the House did. I am not going to sign a Wisconsin-type bill,” Mr. Patrick said at a press briefing in his office.

“In the end, we are going to have a meaningful role for labor, and we are going to deliver on the savings for municipalities,” the governor said.

One difference from the Wisconsin legislation, he said, is that no bill has yet reached his desk.

The governor said he wants to ensure labor has “a meaningful role,” but without the power to veto insurance changes. He said while his bill would force cities and towns to provide insurance no more costly than what state workers get, the House version would allow that as an option, and as a result, would not guarantee municipal savings promised by House leaders.

“We all agree — everybody agrees, including labor by the way — that we have got to do something to take the burden of these escalating health care costs off the municipalities,” Mr. Patrick said. “The principle I have pushed for is about getting the savings to the cities and towns now, in time for the coming fiscal year, and making sure labor has a meaningful seat at the table.”

Union leaders insisted the House bill was an attack on unions and their collective bargaining rights and claimed that many unions have forgone salary increases over several years to maintain insurance benefits.

Although union leaders representing police, firefighters and teachers realize the proposal's savings may forestall widespread layoffs of their members, they have vowed to try to stop the measure from being included in the final state budget legislation.

Hugh Cameron, representing the Massachusetts Coalition of Police, stood with a group of local police officers outside the House chamber today. He said police officers are very disappointed with the House action.

“It goes against every principle of collective bargaining that we know,” he said. “We realize there is a crisis, but work with us through collective bargaining. These gentlemen have taken a zero percent pay raise for two or three years to keep their insurance,” he said of police officers across the state.

“Now our battle is with the Senate,” Mr. Cameron said.

A broad array of interest groups, including Chambers of Commerce, business organizations and the Massachusetts Municipal Association, had targeted union rights to negotiate over health care benefits as a legislative priority this year. Mr. DeLeo backed the measure, saying it will help municipalities avoid layoffs as they deal with dramatic cutbacks in state aid.

Last night, Mr. DeLeo praised lawmakers who stood up to municipal union pressure to substitute alternative proposals that would have left unions in a position to bargain over insurance coverage.

“I applaud the members of the House for taking the vote that will save more than $100 million for cities and towns,” Mr. DeLeo said. “By spending less on the health care costs of municipal employees, our cities and towns will be able to retain jobs and a lot more funding to necessary services like education and public safety.”

State Rep. John P. Fresolo, D-Worcester, was cheered by police and firefighters as he entered the House chamber today.

“My vote was for the working people of the district I represent. I think they are entitled to some type of spot at the table before a decision is made on their benefits,” Mr. Fresolo said, adding he doesn't expect the House version of the bill to make it into the final budget.

Massachusetts AFL-CIO president Robert Haynes called the legislation a “union busting” initiative.

National Association of Government Employees legislative agent Raymond McGrath said the House action struck at the core of collective bargaining rights.

“The health insurance is inconsequential compared to what took place in Massachusetts last night. The Legislature, in a wide majority, voted to eliminate the right of municipal employees to negotiate a contract, with nothing in return,” Mr. McGrath said. He added that labor is willing to give up $100 million in savings to preserve bargaining rights.

But municipal officials set to announce layoffs to cope with budget deficits have been holding out hope that the measure will become law.

“I'm grateful to the speaker of the House and the members of the delegation that voted for this. It was a difficult vote, no question, but it is a significant milestone,” Mr. O'Brien said today.

“It embodies a delicate balance that provides municipal employees access to quality health care, but recognizes what taxpayers can afford. It boils down to saving jobs and services,” the city manager said.

He said the city is working with city unions on plans similar to the less costly state worker insurance plans that would be encouraged under the House legislation. If the changes are adopted by July 1, they could save the city about $5 million in the coming fiscal year, Mr. O'Brien said.

Without those insurance savings, he said, the city will have to lay off 131 people in the Police, Fire and Public Works departments.

He said the type of insurance plans allowed by the House legislation would provide quality health care plans at less cost. “Premiums would be reduced for both the city and the employee,” Mr. O'Brien said.

The House modified the leadership's initial proposal to allow cities and towns to control the size of co-payments and deductibles in worker insurance plans, allowing 30 days of nonbinding talks over the issue before the a municipality could implement any changes, outside of contract provisions.

Another change in the final measure would let unions share in 20 percent of the savings. It also would allow sharing up to 10 percent of savings from other insurance coverage changes they agreed to by unions.

No comments: